Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 595

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Samsung's Reply Claim Construction Brief filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Briggs Declaration in Support of Samsung's Reply Claim Construction Brief, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

EXHIBIT A

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

---------------------------------x
APPLE INC., a California
)
corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)No. 11-CV-01846LHK
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
)
a Korean entity; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a
)
New York corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability
)
Company,
)
)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------x

14
15
16
17

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY GIVARGIS, PH.D.

18

Los Angeles, California

19

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

20
21

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

22
23

Reported by:

24

SUSAN A. SULLIVAN, CSR #3522, RPR, CRR

25

JOB NO. 44330
TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 5
1
2
3

MR. SHAH:

and representing Apple.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

4
5

Ali Shah, WilmerHale, for the witness

Thank you.

And will the reporter now swear or affirm
the witness.

6
7

TONY GIVARGIS, PH.D.,

8

called as a witness, having been duly sworn by

9

the court reporter, was examined and testified

10

as follows:

11
12

EXAMINATION

13

BY MS. MAROULIS:

14

Q

15

today?

16

A

Good, thank you.

17

Q

My name is Victoria Maroulis and I will be

18

Good morning, Mr. Givargis.

How are you

asking you some questions today.

19

Have you ever been deposed before?

20

A

No.

21

Q

In that case let me briefly run you through

22
23

the rules of the deposition.
First of all, do you understand that you

24

are testifying today like you would be in a court of

25

law under oath even though we're sitting in a

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 80
1

his resume and I believe he would have a very good

2

reputation in the area.

3
4

Q

Do you agree that he is qualified to render

an opinion on the meaning of the term "applet"?

5

A

I believe so, yes.

6

Q

In reviewing Mr. Cole's declaration which

7

is Exhibit 4, are there any portions of his

8

declaration that you agree with?

9

A

Do you want me to go section by section

11

Q

However is easiest for you.

12

A

I believe the one area that Mr. Cole and

10

or --

13

myself agree on is that an applet runs within

14

another piece of software.

15

that is sort of Section 11.

We -- you know, I think

16

Q

Do you mean Paragraph 11?

17

A

Paragraph 11, yes.

18

Q

Do you agree with Mr. Cole that for purpose

19

of this patent another a program or application

20

module is essentially equivalent?

21

MR. SHAH:

Objection to form.

22

THE WITNESS:

Yes.

I believe that Paragraph 11

23

is vague in the use of the term "'another program'

24

or 'an application module.'"

25

distinction between an application and a program but

I do draw a

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 81
1

I do recognize that there are sometimes in

2

conversational computer science used

3

interchangeably.

4

Q

BY MS. MAROULIS:

Do you agree these two

5

terms can be used interchangeably in the context of

6

the '711 patent?

7

MR. SHAH:

Objection; asked and answered.

8

THE WITNESS:

Yes, my answer would be the same.

9

I believe that it is important to recognize that an

10

application is more than just a program but that in

11

the field of computer science oftentimes a program

12

is used when an application would work equally as

13

well.

14

Q

BY MS. MAROULIS:

Besides Paragraph 11, are

15

there any other portions of Mr. Cole's declaration

16

that you agree with?

17

MR. SHAH:

18
19

Take whatever time you need to review

the document.
THE WITNESS:

Yes.

If you don't mind, I will

20

quickly look at the exhibits.

Not the exhibits but

21

the description in the declaration.

22

Q

BY MS. MAROULIS:

Please go ahead.

23

A

I believe we both agree that the '711

24

patent and the prosecution history does not define

25

the term "applet" adequately.

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 82
1
2

Q

Do you believe Mr. Cole says that applet is

not adequately defined by the intrinsic record?

3

A

Mr. Cole mentions that there is limited

4

discussion in the specification and claims of the

5

'711 patent, as well as the prosecution history, as

6

to the definition of the term "applet."

7

consistent with my understanding of my view of

8

things that the term "applet" is not adequately

9

defined in the patent.

10
11

Q

That is

Mr. Cole himself does not use the word

"inadequate" or "not adequate," right?

12

A

That is correct, yes.

13

Q

So you agree with Mr. Cole that there is

14

limited intrinsic material in which to rely on.

15

A

That is correct, yes.

16

Q

Anything else that you and Mr. Cole agree

A

Yes.

17
18

on?
In the "Extrinsic Evidence" section I

19

do agree with many of the examples that are

20

presented; for example, AppleScript applets, Linux

21

applets, Ruby applets, as being the kinds of

22

applets, different, not necessarily Java applets.

23

However, all of these, or at least the ones I just

24

enumerated, do follow the Java-like interpreted

25

nature of applets.

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580